It was a magnificent professor of Political Economy — later a colleague and friend — who instilled in me a concern for the problems of economic development and in particular for the characteristics that this process takes on in Latin America. Unfortunately, he is no longer with us. His name: Silvio Baró.
Since then, I have been unable to stop peering — again and again — into such a fascinating and diverse phenomenon, which surprises us every day with new challenges, both practical and theoretical.
The way development is measured has also evolved. Previously, it was reduced to one or two indicators — such as the increase in GDP per capita or participation in world trade — but today it is conceived as a multidimensional phenomenon.
Instruments such as the Human Development Index or the Prosperity Index are some of the measurements used today for this purpose. Neither is perfect; both may be incomplete, but they agree in recognizing the multidimensionality of the phenomenon.
Something similar happened with ideological paradigms. What from the perspective of the political economy of capitalism in its Marxist perspective was considered impossible — achieving development under conditions of capitalist dominance — was no longer so. Countries, even small ones, emerged that achieved impressive progress, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.
Similarly, after the disaster of European socialism and the disappearance of the USSR, the strong conviction generated about the failure of socialist development has had as its counterpart and demonstrated reality the experiences of China and Vietnam.
Not development, developments
These years seem to have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve certain levels of development within the capitalist mode of production, as well as within socialist conceptions.
I know this is tremendously controversial, but there are countries that have achieved it. They themselves represent a great scientific and strategic provocation, also in terms of public policies, leadership and governance.
Perhaps, then, we should stop talking about “development” and start talking about “developments.” Perhaps the real challenge lies in finding the common recurrent elements in the different successful experiences.
Of my 71 years of life, I have spent 50 involved in issues related to our country’s development. Sometimes more consciously, sometimes as an astonished spectator; but always from my perspective as an economics professor.
Thanks to this, I discovered, while still a student and teaching assistant, that concern for development in Cuba did not emerge after 1959.
Long before that, academicians and politicians dedicated time and theoretical effort to understanding our limitations and proposing ways to shake off the heavy burden of underdevelopment. The 15 points set forth by Fidel Castro in Manifesto No. 1 of the July 26 Movement summarized, at least in part, these historical aspirations.
I have had the opportunity to observe, with some perspective, what has happened to us time and time again. The truth is that the sustained effort and sacrifice of generations to achieve development and prosperity has not managed to make it sustainable.
And I refuse to think that it is because people are incapable, corrupt, unconscious, careerist, genetically perverse, or a combination of all of the above.
Quality of people is essential
However, people are indeed decisive in these processes. In all recent successful development experiences, there is a clear commitment to the human factor.
This was also the case in our country for decades, since the very beginning of the Revolution in 1959. Nor am I discovering anything new when I say this. The problem is that technological development itself — this fourth industrial revolution, which uses the ether as its launching pad — seems to be displacing homo sapiens.
It’s decided precisely by the quality of people, which is not only their level of education and skills to inhabit the digital world in which we already live, but also their culture, their civic spirit, their civic behavior.
People are also decisive because some of them will exercise the leadership that any development process requires. And without that leadership, as all successful experiences agree, citizens’ efforts for development will lack the expected results.
This long observation of strategies, campaigns, policies and attempts has led me to a conclusion, perhaps obvious but deeply disturbing: something is fundamentally wrong with our system. Something, or many “somethings,” must be fundamentally transformed, and this is not limited only to the economic, political, ideological or instrumental aspects.
Down to the roots
I haven’t been able to pinpoint it precisely, but I am convinced that if we want to preserve our country and its independence — which, in my opinion, is the only way to establish a project that will lead us to the Cuban socialism we desire — the transformation/reform, or whatever we want to call it, must be rooted in the roots. Occasional pruning or partial grafting isn’t enough. The goal cannot be achieved halfway. And the longer this process is delayed, the more painful it will be.
We live in a world of hegemonies, always at war to preserve them. And we live in a country that has the right — and the duty — to take advantage of all the aid available to us. But it would be a mistake to pin our hopes and goals on what others can do for us. It is, fundamentally, we who must do for ourselves.
We are in the middle of 2025. The results of the first half of the year have already been addressed in other texts. The recent speech by the Minister of Economy at the Congress of the National Association of Economists and Accountants, at least for me, leaves little doubt: we will not get out of the red this year either.
And it confirms two things: the government program to combat distortions and boost the economy has achieved neither, despite almost three years of implementation; and for that very reason, our people are further away today from that concept of prosperity than they were ten years ago: “fully satisfying spiritual and material needs and fostering capabilities, initiative and creativity.”
For all these reasons, today more than ever, people matter.
